This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moreschi (talk | contribs) at 11:23, 29 August 2007 (→Running a bot: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Current issues

Is AN3 broken?

I'm alarmed that certain users are given a free pass on WP:AN3. There is a growing number of pretty obvious infractions that are marked as "not handled". If it is a backlog, the page should clearly say so. If there is some other reason not to implement this policy, it should be identified as well. I don't think that "does it really matter?" is an expected response to a AN3 request. It is unsettling to witness how, for a day or two, some requests are skipped by a bunch of guys who perform the blocks and then declared "historical", with no explanation at all. Since the application of WP:3RR has become so awfully selective, we should either rethink the policy or just throw it out the window. --Ghirla 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people report someone to 3RR they are edit warring with. The more experienced edit warriors know how to game 3RR, only reverting precisely 3 times in any 24 hour period, then getting their friends to revert for them (whilst getting their "enemies" blocked for 3RR or baiting them into incivility and complain about it here, pleading absolute unblemished innocence). We need some kind of bot that flags up (say) 10 revisions in a 7 day period, showing longer term edit warring. As far as the actual operation of WP:AN3 goes, though, it seems up to date at the moment, I just did the last few reports. Neil ム 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that people reporting their "enemies" should be a problem? Editors are entitled to work within the rules. That's generally how our society works too. And surely it's one of the most effective ways of ensuring the rule is complied with? If I'm involved in an "edit war" on some obscure page, am I supposed to sit and hope an interested third party comes along and exclaims, "hey, I've just found more than 3 reverts in one day. Shame on them. I'll go and spend half an hour reporting it". If you have 3RR, enforce it. If someone performs more than 3 reverts in one day, and that is shown, they should get blocked or warned. If there's a concern about longer term edit warriors, have a new rule about that. But there are going to be edit conflicts on wikipedia; 3RR is about reducing their impact on mainspace. Arbitrary application of the rule promotes well ... arbitrariness and unfairness. Why is admin lottery better than solid rules when it comes to a concrete and comprehensible policy such as 3RR? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I always look at the history of the article in question. Quite often you find that the reporter is as guilty of breaching 3RR as the reportee. Then I block them both ... HAH! (kidding, usually I'd ask them both to stopitnow as they'd both get blocked if they continue). Neil ム 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully at WP:3RR it does allow an admin to revert before the letter of the rules is broken, as 3RR is not an allowance but the upper end of the limit. That is also why we have admins, experienced editors who understand the spirit as well as the letter of the rules and guidelines. As for arbitrariness, if more editors were to realise they could be blocked before the 4th edit (depending on the whim on an admim) there might be far less gaming of the system. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This philosophy is wishy-washy and misguided. Systems will always, always, always be gamed. This is just reality. You either have the rule or you don't. What the thing you're talking about promotes is fear of arbitrariness among good users making sensible reverts against POV pushers. I mean, how is the ordinary user supposed to know where the line is drawn? Premonition and psychic powers would be needed! Admins are just editors (some of them aren't even that) who got through admin votes for whatever combination of reasons, and their powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2) The trouble with AN3 is that too many reports are motivated by a desire to get even rather then to prevent disruption. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and I personally see no point blocking someone for a violation 24 hours after the revert war if the disruption has finished. By that stage the block becomes a punishment rather then a preventative measure. Likewise, one of the cases Ghirla reports above was an editor who was trying to disengage from a dispute. Blocking them for that would have simply been lame and the reporting editor later admitted on my talk page that they were simply looking to even up the score because they felt that editor was harrassing them. Unfortunately they couldn't document the complaint properly for investigation at AN/I and there we were. Personally, I think that 3RR reports are often indicators of much more serious underlying problems. Both the decisions complained about above were mine. It would have been nice to have been told about this thread or even have the decisions discussed with me one to one before this thread was opened. I'm still relatively new as an admin and very happy to take advice. Spartaz 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon of Pndapetzim - the rules on reverting are really quite simple, and are expounded on WP:BRD. You should revert just the once, and then discuss the matter. WP:3RR was devised to allow good faith reverts of vandalism without incurring the wrath of pernicious admins (the non editing kind, I assume); therefore any revert other than the first which isn't removing vandalism makes the editor liable for appropriate action. However, it has become custom to permit (or to demand) 3 reverts per 24hours where it is an edit war on a poor or incomplete understanding of 3RR. I often review reports made to AIV and will block editors who are involved in edit wars with violation of 3RR as an "other" reason. If they want to contest their block on the basis that they were not up to their allowance of three reverts/day then they are quite welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The line is drawn at edit warring period. Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law. We don't have strict laws for all circumstances and we don't need them. This is just a heads-up, but whenever I end up investigating something like a 3RR report, both people end up getting blocked for edit warring, regardless of how close to meeting four reverts in 24 hours they were. So don't try to play close with the rules when I or others like me are around — you'll end up blocked all the same. --Cyde Weys 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a good example of why powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. I mean, I am not in any "edit wars", and it sounds like you're trying to bully me. Per above. Systems will always be gamed. Trying to counter this with random fear and admin lottery is not sensible. If 3 reverts per day is too much, lower it. If persistent triple reverting a day is a problem, have another concrete rule. Self-righteous caprice is not the answer. That's not to say that discretion should not be used of course. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's all the more annoying to see people mindlessly reverting four or five times a day and then, after a report was carefully prepared and submitted, being pardoned with the summary "does it really matter". There should be some consistency in the implementation of the rules. --Ghirla 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it. A lot of it has to do with Misplaced Pages being a volunteer administration. In an employee organization, the owners of the company can set up strict rules which the employees must follow or risk being fired. These pressures simply do not exist on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it.

And do you like that system? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not optimal, but there isn't really any way to improve on it in an all-volunteer organization. --Cyde Weys 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could have a solid and consistent 3RR policy for a start. That'd be a way to improve it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The only time I was blocked citing WP:3RR (and that was my first block, mind you) was when I reverted vandalism by an abusive sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte who made no secret of sockpuppetry when he reported me on WP:AN3. I don't know whether reports by anonymous editors are taken seriously these days, but I was instantly blocked (although no revert was identical) because "3RR is a big red flag", etc., etc. Then there was a period when it was fashionable to block people for two or three reverts because "they should have known better". Now we have a period when people are not punished for four or five reverts because, after two days of procrastination, their behaviour is considered "historical". This is very confusing, you know. Looks like a big mess to me. Either we have a rule on three reverts, or we don't. --Ghirla 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking that we block people for something they did two days ago and stopped? You might want to read WP:BLOCK. If they stopped reverting, do you just want to see them punsihed for there actions? That is by far not what blocking is for. Blocking is to stop disruption. If they have stopped themselves then why are we going to throw a block on there too to stop them from doing good?Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't "ask" for anything. I have no habit of block shopping. I welcome comments on whether the rule is still valid and, if it is, why it is applied so arbitrarily. Where's User:William M. Connolley who used to administer the blocks more or less even-handedly and in due time, rather than picking up a request on a seemingly random basis? --Ghirla 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Not trying to bite anybodys head off! It is my belief that there is alot of grey area in WP:3RR. It is up to the administrator handling the case to determing the best course of action. I am sure there are lots of factors taken into account i.e. previous block history for 3RR, experience of editor, willingness to discuss. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. But then these reasons should be identified by the closing admin. The bare summary "no action" is not very informative. --Ghirla 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wont argue with that. I think transparency is important. At least a simple note saying, "user warned, not blocked for this infraction" or something of the sort would be benificial in my opinion. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, isn't punishment is about "deterrence"? if so, deterrence surely reduces disruption? Of course, that's only if the disrupter cares about being blocked or whatever the punishment is. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Cyde's approach, in that I block for disruption when it seems necessary, though rarely for fewer than four reverts. I more often protect the page if there are two people edit warring. But Ghirla has a point. Regardless of what we say the rules are, we only have the rules we enforce. Since 3rr is about the only one we do reliably enforce, we should probably keep on it. It's helpful to check AN3 once in a while, and to clear a few whenever you make a report yourself. It is tedious and uninteresting work, but it needs to be done. The people who do it deserve credit for their contribution to the project. Maybe the foundation could send William M. Connolley an engraved beer mug or something. Tom Harrison 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally think that giving "disruption" as the primary reason for a block is a good idea, unless the disruption is obvious and unquestionable, or unless there's already been a decision made at CSN or ANI. A strict application of the 3RR rule is better. Yes, some people will game the system, but as someone pointed out above, this is inevitable in any large community. One of the biggest problems, on Misplaced Pages and on other wiki sites, is the arbitrary use of power by admins. "Disruption" is quite a subjective term, and, IMO, it's better to have clear-cut rules so that editors know where they stand. Even a well-intentioned admin will make mistakes in issuing blocks; far better, IMO, to enforce the 3RR rule to the letter, in order to reduce the potential for admin mistakes. Yes, some people will game the system and get around it, but that's the price we have to pay; it's more important to ensure that all editors are protected against arbitrary sanctions. Walton 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one questions the validity of blocks for "revert warring" in general (that is below 3RR but still disruptive). But these are discretion blocks not quite the same league as 3RR blocks. "Discretion blocks" should be administered sensibly and, preferably, by responsible admins who write content and, thus, motivated by improvement of the WP as a source of information rather than a self-fulfilling motivation of being in a position to show who is the boss. God forbid this from becoming a "Cyde approach". Non-writing admins should not be anywhere near the block buttons.

Engagement in content writing gives some useful insights that allow to better distinguish the disruptive revert warring between two users who refuse to discuss (block) and repeated reverting (still under 3RR) of a disruptive troll (Bonaparte case in point), copyvio pusher or otherwise nutty editor.

However, reports for "revert warring in general" should go to ANI, not AN3. 3RR is a razor wire, almost an automatic block. Removing the case, like here], because no one bothered when it was urgent as it is "too late to block anyway" may even make sense when the report is indeed historic. But reports should not get historic in the first place, they should be handled, that's one. And two, seeing Spartaz being not "block happy" is heartening. But his not blocking because the maintenance system failed would have been fine if he would still have at least warned a disruptive user.

Frankly, I am sick of that fellow. Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) goes around articles pushing the fringe Ukrainian nationalist POV for a while and this is long since tiresome. While there are plenty of poorly formed 3RR reports, often to hide the fact that the 3RR is questionable in the first place (still people get blocked for those if the backlog is handled by inexperienced or block-happy admins), it was upsetting to see my time totally wasted. I spent at least half an hour to make a report that is presented without confusion (see original) and was kind of upset to see that my time was totally wasted. Since then, I watch the fellow still editing disruptively but under 3RR and I have to waste my time with his edits.

AN3 used to be the least back-logged task. Was it because too many admins love blocking and this is the place to go when one is in a mood to kick some butts or because it requires less skill and work than updating DYK I don't know. But if now even sterile revert warriors can get off and multiple FA writers get blocked under bogus pretenses (recent example) something needs to be changed. --Irpen 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I regard edit-warring as a symptom of a problem. It's rarely a disease in itself, though that can sometimes be the case. Sometimes I think a better approach, rather than blocking, is short protections, particularly on non-high-profile articles. It's often better to look at what's actually being written. On higher-profile articles, admittedly, protection becomes rather more evil. Example: I recently came across a nationalist POV-crankery-pushing troll and a good guy edit warring. They were both on 6RR, or something similar. Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable. Instead of blocking I locked up the article for 12 hours, and the troll got sent packing a couple of days later when he kept on reverting despite 6 different people reverting him. I'm not a huge fan of wholly mechanical 3RR blocks. Yes, edit-warring is a pain, but implementing 3RR in a completely robotic fashion will do nothing but antagonise people. Moreschi 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable." That admins get lynched for blocking trolls is a problem in itself. Tom Harrison 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tom. The inability to deal with trolls who know how to stay within the bounds of 3RR and around the bounds of CIVIL is frustrating as fuck. But what do you do with a bad-faith editor who doesn't break 3RR, doesn't use obvious personal attacks, but just sits around aggrivating editors who are trying to build an encyclopaedia? WilyD 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's something that may not be taught, but must be learned. Tom Harrison 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no automatic administration. If people could make automatic calls on blocks, we could have -bot overlords. The more we praise or seek automatic administrative decisions, the more we abdicate our responsibilities, abridge "community trust," and render ourselves both otiose and destructive. Therefore, investigation, judgment, and communication are de minimis for being an administrator acting in a conflict. The better the investigation, the better the administrative action (the more valid). It takes time. It takes concentration. People who have a lot of experience with writing will be better able, in general, to discern editorial issues, but it would be possible for someone to not be a top writer and yet have Solomonic discretion. It's just rare. The one thing that is absolutely moronic is the idea that something like a block can truly be "automatic." We're people, not automatonic. Geogre 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A note. This was initially not about "automatic handling", also a bad thing. It was about non-handling and then archiving without even warning an editor. Agree with the rest. --Irpen 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if that was the concern, that could have been handled by a note on my talk page pointing out my error. That's a good point but the first time its been made to me. If anyone wants to know about why 3RR gets backlogged look at my talk page - the amound of time and trouble that not being block happy caused was amazing yet both cases were symptomatio of other more serious underlaying problms that would not have been addressed by a mechanical block. Spartaz 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: partially agree but treating the habitual revert warriors with block of increasing length does help address the problem, not of course being the only thing that needs done. Your not block-happiness is appreciated. Still, warning a disruptive editor would have been useful at that point. Finally, you should not see this thread as just a criticism of your action. The thread originator pointed out at the problem with AN3 in general, hoping that some non-block-happy and content-writing admins would go there helping you. The report on Hillock was crystal clear and he well-deserved a block. He is still around from time to time and, frankly, I am tired of dealing with his tendentious edits. Not that I can do much until he over-reverts again. --Irpen 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely debatable whether the 3 revert rule does more good than harm. I for one have no interest in enforcing such a rule, and I suspect many others see it the same way. Friday (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, even though it's not supposed to be an entitlement, many editors do think of it that way. It eliminates some of the fear of being blocked for edit warring, or even thinking of a bit of back and forth reverting as edit warring. WilyD 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is talking about entitlement. But 3RR should not be used to block editors who don't break it, that's all.

• 3RR violation is a blockable offense. You touch the razor wire, you are sent home for 24 hours. There are exeptions, though.
• Disruption is also a blockable offense. Being on occasion close to a 3RR limit may or may not be revert warring. And does not mean the editor considers this "entitlement". Being habitually close to 3RR on a set of articles, is revert warring. WE usually mean the latter when speaking of the editors who consider 3RR "entitlement".

Being able to tell the disruption from legitimate returning the articles to normalcy, once they are attacked by a troll is what's expected from admins, we call it discretion. Content writing helps admins to be better at it. --Irpen 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand the argument against robotic enforcement of 3RR, I think, as I said earlier, that it's very dangerous to simply block people for "disruption" or "being a troll". In the end, terms like "disruptive" and "troll" will always be subjective to some degree. An admin coming into a situation could easily get the wrong end of the stick, and block the user they identify as a "troll" without blocking those on the other side of the conflict. While I know it's frustrating when trolls figure out how to game the system, I think that the arbitrary or unfair exercise of power is a much bigger threat. Better to enforce 3RR strictly; when both sides of the conflict violate 3RR, give both of them a 3RR block, regardless of who you think is a "good guy" or a "troll". Even-handedness and transparency are always needed, and having strict rules protects users against arbitrary exercise of power. Even a great admin with good intentions can easily make a mistake, or misunderstand a situation, and drive contributors away. Walton 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You will note that I did deal with the matter in question completely even-handedly by blocking no one :) Also, I am capable of looking at the content in question. I become very hesitant to block anyone when one side is citing reliable, peer-reviewed academic literature and the other side is citing some random blogpage off teh internetz. These are things we should be thinking about. Overmuch of the mentality of the arbitration committee, who will not rule on content, has filtered down to the admin corps. We should use our brains. Our ultimate aim is to build an encyclopedia. Yes, revert-fighting is doubtless disruptive, but adding shitty content is even more disruptive. 3RR blocks should be made with clue, and, yes, that may involve looking at what is being written. Moreschi 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

micro-summary

There seem to be two schools of thought, and two contradictory principles in action:

• It is important to be seen to be consistent and impartial in applying the 3 revert rule. Otherwise, see WP:ROUGE, WP:CABAL etc.
• Admin discretion is what prevents the smart trolls from freely edit warring, gaming 3RR and getting their opponents blocked.

I'm not saying either camp is wrong. Just trying to sum up. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AN3 and WP:KETTLE

It would seem that if two people are edit warring and one reports the other, the proper response is not to block whomever happens to go over the line first, but to protect the article in question. >Radiant< 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the article, if its a busy article protection may just inconvenience third parties while doing nothing to educate the edit warriors. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on busy articles protection is evil (certainly lengthy protection), and incredibly bitesome to the newbies. That should be avoided. On more obscure articles, however...Moreschi 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Article protection is way more damaging (in many cases) then blocking two editors for 24 hours. I think Dmcdevit's thoughts on the matter are well said. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, though I have much less unpleasant experience than some others, I think a temporary protection is almost always better. It arouses less personal resentment. I think that Radiant's approach is right, unless it is the case that one party is altogether in the wrong and disruptive quite apart from considerations of the individual article. I've yet to see the article that is harmed by being unedited for 48 hours. DGG (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with locking all editors out of an article to stop an edit war between two editors. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Protection has its problems, but it's better than blocking one of the "two editors" you mention just because the other cried "foul" first. >Radiant< 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

]

...where admins would see whether there'd be a need for a block or two or if there'd be no need to see the same report later at . Simple than that. Just redirect WP:AN3 to ! Well, still encouraging suckpuppetry anyway but it is just like scaring the fierce edit warriors. At least you'd not be biting newcomers because there admins would check if accounts reported belong to mature edit warriors and not just cute babies. -- FayssalF - 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy complaining about Yamla

Is there a reason not to revert and block on sight? Tom Harrison 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed something...? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy for example: Tom Harrison 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of one. Bottom line, we softblock TOR. End of story. The individual doesn't like that and has a problem with Yamla (who does quite a bit of cat:rfu clearing) not unblocking the IPs, but not being part of the Chinese government there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do for him (other than perhaps someone telling him to chill out, mail unblock, and request a login). I'd just treat it as spamming, revert on sight, and either report the IPs to WP:OP or investigate yourself if you know how. In a way he's doing us a favor by pointing out more TOR exit nodes and open proxies that need to be softblocked.--Isotope23 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We hardblock TOR, but we don't block people for using it. ... That said, we block TOR very ineffectively. I checked two weeks ago and 75% of the port 80 tor exits were not blocked. So any real troll with half a clue can just pick an unblocked exit and we'd be none the wiser. --Gmaxwell 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't spend much (well any really) time blocking open proxies... but I thought the policy changed to softblocks on TOR... but either way given the unintelligible complaints below I would say this can safely be treated as trolling. If they can complain here they could just as easily be editing rather than wasting time here.--Isotope23 11:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

no, in tor, must click new identity and press f5 many times then can edit, but wait long. --饿鬼 12:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

我们只想编写几个条目，可是Yamla不要让我们编辑。当我们投诉他，你们不但放过他，而删除我们的投诉，甚至封禁我们？--一闪一闪亮晶晶 09:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"We want to prepare several entries, but do not let us Yamla editor. When we complained to him that you will not only miss him, and the deletion of the complaint, or even blocked us?" --Masamage ♫ 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

你们太过分了！我第一次阅读WIKIPEDIA，就想编写几个条目。没想到，这里不欢迎中国人。--郑优秀 10:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

我们不认识这位家伙。 郑优秀，何兰村，饿鬼，一闪一闪亮晶晶，月亮代表我的心和我是好朋友。--韩学佳 11:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

hello. our friend zheng youxiu show us wikipedia. we want write few articles, but your admin yamla dont let us edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 饿鬼 (talk • contribs) 11:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

王八蛋！烧他们的屋子，杀他们的家人！--Sun Jiaxuan 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

They are trolls because they are Chinese? --Kaypoh 09:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to those complaining here, no, they are trolls because of their behaviour and threatening comments (see translation of above line in my comment below). KTC 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(Translation) - "<Insult>! Burn their house, kill their families!" -- KTC 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that someone is running a sockpuppet campaign to get TOR proxies unblocked on Misplaced Pages. Ask any CAT:RFU patroller and they'll tell you that multiple requests are being made each day to have TOR proxies unblocked or soft blocked. 99% of these requests are being made by accounts with Chinese character usernames, and these users refuse to communicate in English on their talk pages. But most noticeably, their unblock requests are always followed by a {{helpme}} template which stands out like a sore thumb because neither MediaWiki:Blockedtext or Misplaced Pages:No open proxies even mention it. Only "welcomed" users are made aware of the helpme template which is an indication to me that we're dealing with an experienced editor disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point or trying to catch out the newer administrators who aren't necessarily knowledgeable about the disruption that open proxies expose Misplaced Pages to. --  Netsnipe  ►  12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

These all pass the WP:DUCK test if you ask me. There is absolutely no reason we should tolerate insults against other editors no matter what language they are made in. Burntsauce 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Source or status Image:Gold-Petersburski.jpg

1. According Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and {{di-no source}}: Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. I suggest, that the description of this image haven't enough information about its author/source/license-status (I have reported about this problem to Halibutt two times). I can't verify information about this file, for using in Ru-Wiki and/or reupload to Commons. Could any admin check the status of this image?
2. Also, I ask you to examine behaviour of Halibutt in next edits: and espessialy . Is it normal to give other user fake information in the form of sarcastic verbiage?

   P.S. At ru-wiki (ru:Изображение:Gold-Petersburski.jpg) we had found the possible source of this image, but there was not enough information about its status. I don't want to delete this image, I want to know - is it really free, or is fair-use more preferable? Alex Spade 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm tended towards fair use but really to fairly use an image one needs to have at least an idea of its source, can you expand on the ru-wiki theory about its origin? Its not quite over 100 years old which is annoying (though it's not that far off), but at the same time its low resolution and clearly not a great photograph even for that time period. An easier route may be to find an alternative picture if one exists that hopefully either is copy-free or can be used under fair use rationale, who knows, it might even be better quality! WikipedianProlific 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Update; a very quick google search found this site with a roughly double sized version of the image though it may be an enlargement of ours, I can't tell, its full of artefacts though. The bottom of the site reads "Copyright 1988-2006 Murray L. Pfeffer. All Rights Reserved", but its hard to say if they actually own the image or are just using it. WikipedianProlific 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The musical act was formed in 1926, so it cannot be public domain for being 100 years old. According to , the second website mentioned that has the photo didn't even host it until around Sept 06, which was months after Halibutt uploaded the picture on Misplaced Pages. Pretty much, I am starting to think it was a scale up from our image, since I see the same artifacts and white border that we have. I would suggest just for a relicense of the image to make it where it is true. User:Zscout370 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that people increasingly report all sorts of petty grievances on this page rather than on WP:ANI. If there is no distinction between the two noticeboards, we should think about merging them. --Ghirla 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is probably in the best place as although it involves a specific user its not really an incident report, its more of a copyright matter requesting assistance. Its useful in my opinion to have ANI, AIV and AN for two reasons: first is volume, one combined page would be very big, by the time you'd edited it you'd get a 'another user has edited this page' warning. Having several makes it more manageable. Secondly, ANI and AIV can deal with largely misconduct issues while this page can deal with less immiedieate problems that require some investigation, such as this case. Anyway, back on topic I missed that User_talk:Zscout370, nice find. Yeah sounds like relicense is best. Shame its not easier to find out where its definately from. WikipedianProlific 20:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The tricky part is what license to use? From poking around at the Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-Polish seems to be an appropriate license, but I need some double checking to be sure. User:Zscout370 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good choice, though obviously it depends on the photograph being polish in origin but all the evidence seems to suggest it is, plus, the image is all over the internet and the license seems viable to it. I'd use it as that, then just explain in the description that as best we know thats the score. If new information comes to light we can always correct the license or remove the image if need be. WikipedianProlific 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke

Apologies for the length It was decided a month ago that TJ Spyke was to be indefintly blocked from Misplaced Pages for excessive revert warring blocks and for using multiple sockpuppets. He contacted me by e-mail a month ago about the inital thought that a IP he used was used to commit vandalism (its still unknown if that is true or false). In any case, what I told TJ Spyke was very clear: The community was sick of the revert warring, so sick they have indefinetly blocked you (refering to TJ). Before the indefinte block was placed by User:Alkivar, it was agreed that TJ Spyke was to serve an multi-month block, which he had never recieved before. I told him by e-mail to serve out a month of no editing and to come back in a month if he was still interested in editing. Editing for him is literally impossible at this point, all accounts and IP's are blocked. I told him in a month I will have his talk page unprotected so he may comment. I had this done yesterday. You may view the comment here. I gave him very sturdy ground rules if he was to return to editing (that is if the community lets him back). This would require:

1. Limiting himself to one account (i.e no more sockpuppets, period)
2. Placing him on revert parole (1RR preferably)
3. Admit any past accounts he has formerly or currently had, and admit their usage was wrong. (this was essential since he never did admit to the fact he used them)
4. Apologize for his disruptive behavior openly.
5. And if he violated the limitation of the account numbers, or violated revert parole, he can be reinstated with an indefinite block.

On the talk page you will see that every criteria I placed to him has been accepted by TJ Spyke, again, given that the community decides to unblock him.

What I propose is that with the limitation of accounts and revert parole placed, that TJ Spyke be allowed to continue editing. An indefinite block can be reinstated if either are violated again. This is a hard working editor for the most part. The only problem he had was revert warring where it wasn't appropriate, and where most of his blocks came from. This is all moot if the community doesn't want TJ Spyke back, but I believe this editor wants to make a solid effort to regain our trust. Thoughts? — Moe ε 04:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that he should have one last chance. However, I'm hesitant to support him being unblocked this very day. I think that it would be fair to go back to the idea that was garnering the community's consensus at WP:CSN before Alkivar took the initiative to indef block him. Said idea was to set the block to expire on December 1, and then place him on the paroles. It doesn't seem right to not make him sit through a multi-month ban since that was the main issue that people had with just permanently banning him outright. However, I would be fine with any admins passing by turning the blind eye to him editing his talk page. There are many users around who still see him as a mentor, and he is knowledgeable on policies whether he has had the self control to obey them in the past or not, so allowing him to have a place to communicate with those who wish to contact him seems like a profitable decision. The Hybrid 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind The Hybrid 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the validity of that claim from a non-checkuser, non-admin claim. — Moe ε 21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that was a mistagging of his userpage.. — Moe ε 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with that deal. -- KBW1 06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this: just as long as people are committed enough to check all of his edits. Many times he claims "vandalism", but it's just his personal view of what he thinks is vandalism. So this is one more thing, that people need to watch out for when it comes to TJ's edits. RobJ1981 04:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy sent threatening emails POST-block... repeatedly edit warred on his talk page which had to be protected... you people are crazy for even considering this.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA please, Alkivar. The Hybrid 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar, it's very obvious that you have issues with TJ Spyke and it's becoming increasingly clear that you should not have been the blocking administrator in this situation, nor should you have protected his talk page from communicating, claiming an edit war on the templates which he long stopped nor should you have put an e-mail block on his account so no one could communicate with him entirely. You blocking him is reason enough to overturn it and let someone else block him for the appropriate time limit. — Moe ε 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has always had it out for TJ Spyke -- KBW1 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Based on earlier experience, I'd say that TJ is a net negative and a detriment to the project. We don't need the kind of user that needs to be "watched closely" by more experienced editors to prevent him from attacking others. >Radiant< 10:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Eh? He isn't being watched to keep out from attacking editors, he would be watched to make sure he doesn't edit war or use another account, thats a completely different thing to say he is attacking someone. — Moe ε 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• TJ Spyke never sent me harassing emails, but I will say this: My major concern is that he has zero respect for our WP:BLP policy AND has a proven history of using sockpuppets. He has even gone as far as to restore BLP violating content on more than one occassion. We most certainly do not need this type of editor on the project. I'm sure he can find a pro-wrestling wiki to contribute to instead. Burntsauce 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look everybody, the man said he was sorry and that he wasn't going to do it no more. Thats all he can say is his word. Either you believe him or don't. I have some faith in him still. -- KBW1 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It took an indefinite block for him to even ADMIT and come clean that he was using sockpuppets, after multiple blocks and multiple conclusive checkusers confirmed it. Given the nature of the violations by this user, I agree with Radiant that any more time wasted here is a net negative. My suggestion is he try Prowrestling Wikia instead, which has much looser policies regarding biographies of living people. Burntsauce 20:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't even joke about that, it's just as or is going to be as hard as Misplaced Pages BLP. I suggest you don't go treading there. — Moe ε 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce, where as everyone commenting has had both positive and negative experiences with TJ, the only experiences that you have had with him, or anyone else involved with wrestling articles other than JB socks for that matter, have been negative experiences relating to a difference in opinion. This subject is a conflict of interests for you since you don't have the experiences with him to look at him objectively. Please, let those who have seen both sides of him debate what will become of him, and stop making snide remarks about the Pro Wrestling Wikia where you know Moe is a BCrat in an attempt to provoke him. You aren't helping matters by trying to get attacked. If you have a beef with Moe, then sort it out elsewhere, and don’t anyone shove WP:AGF down my throat. I pray that everyone is intelligent enough to see what Burntsauce was trying to do. The Hybrid 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren opened

An Arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Communtiy ban on User:AFI-PUNK?

This user has been blocked indefinately since May, and is a puppet master of 16 sockpuppets.. Can we get consensus to add him to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users?Hoponpop69 06:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This should be posted on WP:CN. However, from what I can tell the user and his socks have not been active since mid-July, so there's no reason for a community ban at this point. --Coredesat 07:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Or just be bold and add him. If he wishes to contest he can contact any admin he chooses or arbcom. —— Eagle101 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the person has been using 16 KNOWN sockpuppets (there could be more) then I see no reason not to issue a community ban. Burntsauce 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason for which this would be of interest especially to admins (as against to the general community, with, if necessary, a note at VP) or would require administrators' intervention? Joe 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's alleged to be a censorship/disclaimer template. >Radiant< 10:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, stating, "As the underlying dispute has been satisfactorily resolved by the community, and as no evidence of bad-faith actions by any party has been presented, this case is closed with no further actions being taken." This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I applaud the closure of this matter by the Arbitration Committee, and by the closer of the recent AFD as well. Burntsauce 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends, a dark cloud has been hanging above our heads over the past weeks, and personally, I have been quite worried, even somewhat melancholic. Worries ranged from fear of change, fear of losing the community spirit, and fear of annoance rising from something that shouldn't be a problem. Indeed, every time I thought of the BJAODN ArbCom case, all I could think of was sad clowns in the rain. I thought I was going mad; it was a completely irrational association, no matter how appropriate. Such great and deep worry just illustrated how complex things have become in Misplaced Pages. Now, the clouds have hopefully passed. So what could we do now? The article on carnivals appears to need some work. I urge people to fix that article in honour of a swift and hopefully conclusive resolution of this complex matter. And, yes, thanks to the ArbCom and the community to hopefully wrapping this up properly for now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhg, that's enough literary devices please. I don't think anyone really cared that much. -- John Reaves 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All takers, close this

The exceedingly annoying and DRV-ridden Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination) AfD has passed the requisite five days. I hope someone with a level head tries to sort through it. David Fuchs 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Majorly closed it as keep, he should have given a good reason why though, as it's one of those chaos AFDs that should have had a reasoning no matter what. I myself would have closed it as no consensus leaning towards delete as the keep side was fairly weak and several of them were protest votes, not valid reasons for keeping, but comments like "uncyclopedic fancruft" isn't helpful nither. It's clearly not a keep though. Thanks Jaranda 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus for it to be deleted; not even close. I don't generally give reasons for closes, but it seemed to me on this 3rd AfD in less than a month that the general consensus favoured keeping it. People are of course welcome to DRV it (again), but I can imagine it getting similar results. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for keep nither though, no consensus is much different from keep or delete straight up, and btw, anyone who does a WP:DRV on that again it's obvious WP:POINT and should be blocked/warned, we don't need anymore DRV drama. Thanks Jaranda 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "no consensus" would also have been reasonable. Overall, however, this article has been the victim of overly much process wonkery. First it was nominated for deletion. This was snowballed because the nomination was withdrawn and nobody else suggested deletion, and it had an overwhelming number of keeps, which is reasonable. A few days later it was nominated again, which is doubtful (it should have been discussed with the previous closer, or taken to DRV). This was speedily closed on grounds that it was discussed last week, which is likewise doubtful because that discussion was snowballed. This was sent to deletion review, which was about evenly split (which is telling!) and in which many of the responders focused only on whether early closing in general is useful, and missed the actual reasons for the first snow close. Then, lacking an obvious consensus either way, the DRV was then speedy closed by someone who remarked that deletion debates should never be speedily closed (irony alert!), and relisted again even though by now it was blatantly obvious that it would result in no consensus for deletion. Perhaps we shoild have a WP:WONK page to list this kind of issues on as an example, like WP:LAME does for other kinds of issues. >Radiant< 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant! says it quite well. It's been on AfD 3 times in the past month, and only one of those times was really a suitable nomination - the first one. It should have gone to deletion review if people disagreed with the close, not renominated, but the DRV was closed early, and renominated again purely for process. There was clearly no consensus for deletion at any time.

As for closing as keep, I felt the delete comments weren't policy bound as much as the keep comment. "I don't like it" and "Not a fan site" didn't really go far when I looked at the article. Sure, it needs work, but it's a major series, which reliable sources can be found for.

Also, I suggest renominating it in about a months' time if no significant improvement has been made on it. And please ask me to clarify if you need any more explanation (or you think I was completely wrong, which I sometimes am! ^_^) Majorly (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt it will get better, but this will probably be like List of Battlefield 1942 mods- nominated so many times they'll vote 'keep' because of WP:POINT concerns, although the main issues were never addressed... However, the question I had, looking over the AfD and deciding how I might have closed it, is what constitutes original research.

Going into all that, the only real reference was an about.com article on the possible latin translations for the spells- but even though they are apparently based on Latin, there hasn't been any sort of response by Rowling as to whether these translations have merit. The "Keep"ers were adamant about this not being OR, but I was curious about what others thought. Thanks for providing rationale, btw Majorly. David Fuchs 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If Rowling did provide an official translation, it'd be dismissed as non-independent.--Nydas 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sad, but so true. KTC 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a perfectly reasonable close to me. I was thinking about closing it myself and was on the fence between keep and no consensus (it could have gone either way). Personally I am more bothered by Jreferee's (who closed the DRV) opening statement in the nomination of the AfD. It sounded basically like a delete !vote in the nomination. I personally think it is rather bad form to relist with anything but a "procedural" nomination. Anything else insinuates bias in the close of the DRV. IronGargoyle 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"OMG, AfDed three times in a month!!". Three AfDs were formatted out of a technicality. The first AfD was closed because no one at that time (after only 10 hours) had a major reason to delete it (a retracted AfD is just that, retracted). A second AfD was started with people who did find other reasons to support deletion, and should have been seen as unrelated from the first AfD. Then everyone was forced to take it to DRV just so we could continue that second AfD, which was formatted as a 3rd.

I don't have a problem with the 3rd AfD close (although I would have called it no-consensus), I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between this messy situation and a normal spree of three AfDs. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although the third AfD was closed properly, the first two closures were not handled correctly. Our coverage on fiction is so divisive that there should never be a snowball keep. — Deckiller 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether there should or should not be snowball for any particular topic is of course up to the community, but would you had a problem if the 1st one was closed as nomination withdrew, because the nomination was withdrew. KTC 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments that "we should never snowball this" are at least slightly missing the point, because the first AFD met the speedy keep criteria. >Radiant< 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Concern about admin actions of User:Caltrop

I have twice tried to contact User:Caltrop about his undeletion of Image:Garjoel.jpg, at the time an image description page without an image. Both times he has responded by deleteing his talk page, once with the comment "cleaning snark". He also deleted his talkpage in response to someone asking about a copy-and-paste move of Genga that Caltrop performed. This is hardly appropriate behavior for an admin; what should be done about it? --Carnildo 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any major offenses committed here. It seems a tad impolite that he would delete his talk page without giving a tiny response to the comments or concerns posted...but again doesn't seem that controversial or questionable. I'll leave a note about the notice posted here on his talk page and see if he cares to comment.¤~Persian Poet Gal 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That really is rather unusual. It's certainly expected that administrators be willing to communicate through their talk pages, though things may have been different when he got his sysop bit. (I don't know when he was promoted, but it was apparently before RfA existed in its current form.)

If someone could have a polite word with him to explain how things work now, that might be best. The 'if you have a problem, email me and wait at least twelve hours for a response' model of communication just isn't how we do things any more. (If ever it was.) I don't think there's any need for torches and pitchforks as long as he undeletes his talk page and starts using a more usual archiving scheme. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as Caltrop is active, his talk page needs to be restored. As I understand our standard practice, user talk pages are only deleted if somebody is acting on their right to vanish. Caltrop's contribs do not indicate he is leaving. - auburnpilot talk 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom made quite clear at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson#Communications that this sort of thing is not appropriate. Caltrop shouldn't do it. Chick Bowen 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/My.BarackObama.com

Italiavivi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), creator of the article My.BarackObama.com, has persistantly made unwarranted accusations of bad faith, and attacking editors opposed to his/her view on this AFD, including removal of comments. See talk page also. I am an Involved admin on the AFD, it would appear additional attention is needed. This user is intentialy WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system in order disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate his points. See alsoUser:Italiavivi#How_to_make_personal_attacks_on_Wikipedia_and_get_away_with_it along ith the other helpful(sarchastic) hints.. --Hu12 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

These type of attacks really aren't necessary, especially in light of the fact that almost no one supports deletion of the article. Burntsauce 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've notified him of this thread and warned him about removing comments, which is disruptive.--Isotope23 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the comment was moved to the talk page where a thread on the subject was taking place. It wasn't an out and out deletion. It may have been disruptive, but it's not beyond AGF to believe that the editor simply thought it was more appropriate there. -Chunky Rice 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He may of felt that but outside of really vicious personal attacks or a text dump it is generally a very bad idea to move, edit, or otherwise modify another editor's comments outside the article space. It may have been well intentioned (which is why he was cautioned instead of blocked), but it is an ill advised practice regardless.--Isotope23 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dissagree with Chunky Rice, it was in reponse to this edit , which was the removal of large chunk of unnecessary policy text that wasn't suitable for the main page. Followed by the comment on the talk page "People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB.". Based on the identifiable behavior and edits towards this user(and others) there is identifiable evidence to the contrary of good faith. --Hu12 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, I forgot textdumps... those should be removed as well. That is why we can wikilink.--Isotope23 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. That the fact that it was a move instead of a straight deletion? Or that that it is amitgating factor? -Chunky Rice 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a retaliatory edit, as the comment that was removed was in response to a comment not removed from the main page. Which is clearly shown on the left.--Hu12 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're disagreeing with me about. -Chunky Rice 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't clarify, I dissagree that it's not beyond AGF to believe that the editor simply thought it was more appropriate there, as I pointed out above. I believe it to bad faith;)--Hu12 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It was not my intention to make an assertion for good or bad faith, which is why I was confused. I merely wanted to present some information. -Chunky Rice 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a response to this edit, where my original comments (not the WP:WEB criteria) were moved to the Talk page by User:Leuko. I won't hold my breath for Leuko's warning, either. I also stand by my comments that I have been WP:STALKed at that AfD by editors from completely uninvolved content disputes (specifically User:Endroit), regardless of whether or not User:Hu12 characterizes stating such as an "attack." Italia 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the 3RR on the textdumps 05:42, 27 August 200716:22, 27 August 200716:34, 27 August 200716:43, 27 August 200716:48, 27 August 2007.--Hu12 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen such a misleading, false 3RR report in my entire time editing here. You should be de-sysopped for distortion like this. I encourage and welcome any administrator to go over those diffs, and I challenge you to immediately post those diffs to WP:AN/3RR for evaluation. Italia 21:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, I have. Whether or not it's a strict 3RR vio I'm not convinced, but it's definitely edit warring and could most certainly be considered blockable. As for your other comment, there is nothing here that remotely justifying desysopping. Please be civil. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have looked closer at the policy based on your comment, Heimstern Läufer, and you are correct;

Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours.

In this case the revisions were clearly disruptive in order to game the system. Taking in account the prior 2 blocks for revert warring it most certainly can be considered blockable. 3RR is not an entitlement. Thanks for the clarification.--Hu12 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You believe you don't warrent a warning in that little edit war? --Hu12 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't believe you are knowingly distorting those diffs? You don't believe you misrepresented why I moved WebHamster's responses to the Talk page? Italia 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not clear in the initial statement, so don't "distort" it to your benefit. I did not call for a block. However they are your edits and it goes to motive for , if it was blockable, I would have blocked you for the violation. You never even got so much as warning from me, so I thought it worththy a mention. At least you learned something from you last 2 blocks --Hu12 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maby someone else can make sense of this. Italiavivi, you claim the comment removal was a response to Leuko's edit @ 16:53, 27 August 2007. However you expanded an existing comment of yours immediatly folowing Leuko's edit17:05, 27 August 2007. Note what was added. The very next edit was WebHamster responding to what you just added @17:43, 27 August 2007. Claiming that the removal of that comment was in response to this @ 16:53, 27 August 2007, and knowing that WebHamster's response was directed at you, is wholey implausable. Why was WebHamster's response removed and not what you added also not removed from the main page?--Hu12 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are simply another editor with which I am involved in a content dispute with, Hu12. You're a terrible sysop, and I'm tired of treating you as one. If another administrator wants to examine the situation fairly and warn everyone involved who allegedly acted improperly, fine (still waiting for User:Leuko to be warned for removing my comments). You are simply abusing the Administrator's Noticeboard to push your side of a content dispute. Italia 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You were reminded several times in the AFD about your attacks, by others and by myself. You have failed to take responsibility for you conduct, be cooperative or even make attemps at WP:CIVIL behavior towards other editors. Look at your contributions of editing, comments and talk page discussions this month. There seems to be a serious pattern developing. You have not been able to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. Most everything you've done on the project this month (August 2007) has been conflict orientated and devoid of cooperation. Maby its time you take a Misplaced Pages:Wikibreak. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. However, this pattern has begun to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators and other people who work to create content and help run Misplaced Pages. Editors who have differing opinion from yours, do not deserve your continued unwarranted accusations and hostility. Because of the personal attack on me above, I have added a warning on your page. I will remind you of the Consequences of personal attacks."Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban."--Hu12 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are a poor administrator, who is using the AN as a platform for a content dispute in which you are involved. I will not take your warnings seriously, and encourage any uninvolved administrator to review Hu12's behavior here. Hu12, please do not return to my User_talk space for matters related to content disputes. Italia 15:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also: Hu12 accused me of doing nothing but "conflict oriented" editing this month. I tried making a well-referenced, innocuous article away from other controversial subjects only to be met by hostile editors like yourself and WebHamster. Your aggression (including trying to scrub the article from Misplaced Pages before the AfD was done) has been, from the get-go, what caused the disruption here. I was taking a break from controversial articles by trying to write a nice side-piece, and got my ass jumped all over again and WP:STALKed from other content disputes. Don't tell me I haven't tried to get away from controversy, because that's completely untrue. Italia 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, you have falsely accused me of WP:STALK here. You have also repeated called me a "Republican", which even if I were Republican, has nothing to do with any of our discussions. Please stop your personal attacks.--Endroit 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are stalking. Please stop your harassment. You are the blackest kettle in the room with regard to personal attacks, I hope you don't seriously believe you're fooling anyone with this posturing, at least no one with the ability to read your contribution history. Italia 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Show us the diffs then. In which articles did I follow you around and harrass you? The diffs will show that it's rather Italiavivi harrassing me and calling me "Republican".--Endroit 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only conclude Italia's aims are met by misrepresenting facts through deliberate deception and a malevolent use of Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Repeated assumptions of bad faith and unsubstantiated use of the terms "content dispute", and "edit war" in order to mischaracterize editors that have differing opinion in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper. In almost every case this is used, it is misrepresented in unwarranted accusations and hostility. An honest Wikipedian does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument.

As an uninvolved admin on on a related page Talk:Obama (disambiguation), the results were disheartening.

• persistently making personal attacks;
• persistent incivility or harassment;
• edit warring or revert warring;

Italia's conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.--Hu12 23:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you link to had been incorrectly labeled as an RfM. It was confusing to all involved editors, and closed per my advice. Hu, it's that you are using your sysop platform against users who disagree with you in content disputes. I doubt anyone reviewing your posting now seriously believes you are being either neutral or straightforward in your portrayal of your disputes with me. Italia 02:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am flattered, by the way, that you are copy-pasting my writing from Isarig's Community Noticeboard discussion and trying to twist them against me. It's good to see that you can at least appreciate my writing to some extent, even if you won't acknowledge it elsewhere. Italia 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Start going through the barrage of disingenuously-labeled diffs Hu has provided above -- I encourage it. Hu described this diff, where I tell an editor that trying to split hairs over "Misplaced Pages policies" versus "Misplaced Pages guidelines" is grasping for straws, as "incivility or harassment." Italia 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything left to discuss here, as it seems we're now down to a dispute between two users. Something like an RFC might be good now, as ANI is not part of dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not even sure what Hu's hoping to accomplish here anymore. Italia 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image for deletion, approaching 3 weeks and still no action

Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_10
There are a few images that need deletion and have been sitting around for more than 2 weeks.
Image:027 ERP gantry.jpg‎
Image:Stigma uc lc.svg
Image:Mangroves.jpg
Heidianddick 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Those were all deleted from en.wikipedia. The link you are seeing is a file with the same name that exists on Commons. Resolute 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says so in the discussion areas, except the gantry one which was closed because it was not listed properly. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In response to a matter brought up at Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive11#PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), user:PalestineRemembered agreed to be mentored. Unfortunately for all involved, the volunteer mentor turned out to be a sockpuppet of an blocked user. As such, there is the need for a new mentor for user:PalestineRemembered. Personally, I would volunteer, but I forsee two issues. Firstly, my in-wiki time is always highly variable. Secondly, User:PalestineRemembered may object due to my religious and/or perceived ideological backgrounds. Of course, part of what mentorship is meant to accomplish is to help the mentored overcome the inability to interact, at least cordially, with people whom the mentored may have deep disagreements with. However, mentorship will be completely ineffective if the mentored (or the mentor for that matter) are unable to work with their partner. Thoughts or suggestions are appreciated. -- Avi 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been informed that placing notices in TalkPages that certain contributors to articles are sockpuppets who are now banned is somehow out of order. Personally, I felt this was a proper courtesy to other editors who had struggled against edit-warring to improve these articles - my notification might encourage such people to come back and get on with the work of the project. Furthermore, it would remind people (who might not be aware) that sock-puppetry is taken fairly seriously.

Whether a mentor would have helped me avoid this apparent breach of (what?), I'm not sure. I've seen (and suffered from) far more aggressive "policing" of the policies of the encyclopedia, it's clearly not normally considered a breach of Wiki-quette to point out breaches. PalestineRemembered 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(see also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive100#"Mentorship" account SpecialJane blocked, no reason given -nadav (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

I suggest we take this over to AAU. We need to be sure any mentor who takes it on knows what it's all about, is neutral to the ME articles and discussions, and is willing to help PR navigate that part of the encyclopaedia. I must admit I had concerns about SpecialJane from the start - something wasn't right, but I still can't put my finger on what it was. Does anyone object to me driving the request? Mark Chovain 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh - I just noticed it's already been taken there. Mark Chovain 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... The request has gone unanswered for 3 days now. Any suggestions? Would it be worth approaching a number of adoptees directly? Mark Chovain 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bharatveer (talk · contribs)

I blocked this fellow for a week for 3RR (5th block): however, since then, I've filed a a request for arbitration concerning his conduct. He should be unblocked to present his statement, yes? If so, please unblock him ASAP, as I'm going offline shortly. Moreschi 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he can just post his statement on his talk page and someone will post it across to WP:RFArb for him. I personally think that for a user that isn't a massive threat to the project when unblocked, it's best to unblock them to present their side of the story to arbitration. If I was you, I'd unblock them on the condition that they only edit arbitration pages for the duration of their block, if he steps out of line, he can be re-blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds opened

An Arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing dismissed

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to dismiss the Arbitration case entitled "Vision Thing". This has been passed with the rationale that there is a lack of usable evidence. For the arbitration committe, Cbrown1023 talk 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case has closed. The remedy is as follows:

The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

The full case decision is here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAP - new measure against template vandalism to main page FA

I've created the page Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Protection (shortcut = WP:FAP) after another wave of vandalism to the templates on the main page FA. The simplest way of guarding against a lot of template vandalism is just to keep a copy of the main page FA on a separate page that is cascade protected. That way all the templates that are on it will be automatically protected (however numerous they are - we had one FA with over 60 templates not that long ago). It won't cover new templates added during the course of the day but there are unlikely to be many such valid additions. Just copy and pasting the whole thing seems quicker than identifying and listing all the templates. Comments welcome - if this is a stupid idea for reason I haven't foreseen do let me know. Oh, and if we run with this, volunteers to update the page would be good - I'd suggest a Bot but unfortunately the page is protected :(. WjBscribe 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. Perhaps Cyde's bot could do it if it gets +sysop. -- John Reaves 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wave of template vandalism? To which templates/articles? (I must have missed that.) Gracenotes § 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moon was the last one (see templates {{Moon footer}} and {{E}}) - but there's been a general rise in people targetting the main page FA's templates in the last few weeks. WjBscribe 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That has got to be the greatest shortcut EVER. hbdragon88 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell yeah. —Crazytales (t.) 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since clearly the only reason why this page exists is because of its shortcut, I suggest we reject it as frivolous! ;) Or most seriously, cascading protection is very complete—perhaps too complete for our purposes. With reasonable timing, I could protect any page I wanted (if only temporarily). Template vandalism comes and goes, and I suggest that we don't implement this unless it gets really bad for a period of time. Gracenotes § 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BANNED libel

I realize that John Bambenek isn't the most popular topic here, but is it really necessary to libel him in WP:BANNED? The hording of the deletion process and abuse of sysop powers banning anyone not agreeing with the "consensus" is bad enough, but comments like User:Jbamb's entire edit history being solely directed to keeping his Misplaced Pages article simply aren't true. There are over 2000 edits that were made by that editor before he was banned by a sysop who was later sanctions twice for abuse of sysop powers. He started Misplaced Pages:POV Cleanup for instance, and that was no small undertaking. Do we really need to continue to harass someone who has no right of response simply because he wrote articles criticizing Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.253.87 (talk) 03:01, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not an issue of libel, but the wording of the explanation for Bambenek's community ban is rather indelicate and, it seems, inaccurate (I'm only mildly acquainted with the issue, but it's my understanding that, irrespective of the motivations of Bambenek's Misplaced Pages-related activities, he did contribute non-disruptively and not exclusively with reference to his article; please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Even as the issue is relatively insignificant, it is probably best for us to be accurate and not to antagonize anyone unnecessarily, and so I tweaked the wording slightly; I think that should suffice. Joe 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request IfD closure

Request an admin familiar with WP:NFCC to close this contentious IfD. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Neil ム 09:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate speech

I have had no experience dealing with hate speech on talk pages, so I am going to defer the case here by 202.46.115.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to a more experienced admin Borisblue 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They've received a stern warning, and can be blocked if they do it again. That's about all the response needed for this level of disruption. --Masamage ♫ 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We gave him a vandalism template? This isn't exactly vandalism... isn't there a more appropriate message?Borisblue 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you end up having a content dispute with them - you don't want to get into an argument about whether group X really is superior/inferior or whatever. It is vandalism really. Secretlondon 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether we split hairs over whether it's vandalism, or trolling, or just nasty and disruptive, it's unacceptable whatever we call it. Seraphimblade 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also incivility warnings, of course. This was certainly that, but it was also vandalism because they removed somebody else's post. Most effective would be a custom message that addressed the specific wrongdoing, but it doesn't matter much, because anyone who makes posts like this is unlikely to have a change of heart based on a paragraph from someone they can't see.--Masamage ♫ 04:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the part stating "kill kelings" goes a bit beyond simple vandalism to being a threat since it is advocating bodily harm to an individual or individuals. --Strothra 04:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to explain the warning. -- Hoary 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard#United_States_House_of_Representatives

People may want to see this proposal. Durova 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't something the CSN can decide. See WP:SIP. This sort of decision should be made by the Wikimedia Communications Committee (and I would imagine their response would be "no, we will not block the entire US House of Representatives from editing Misplaced Pages for the best part of a year"). Neil ム 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo seems to have weighed in rather unequivocally on the matter - it should probably be closed, considering. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that the semiprotection wouldn't be appropriate, Jimbo's word isn't law. There would be strong opposition to this proposal even without Jimbo's comment. As a side issue, it has never been particularly clear to me what WP:CSN does have authority to accomplish. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is "until the community take a dislike to it and shut it down". That's not meant to be a snide comment, but a realistic one. I think someone should do a list of pages or projects that the community can't shut down (or shouldn't). I often use WP:ARBCOM as an example. It seems to be doing OK at the moment, and it is unlikely that that institution would ever be drastically shut down or changed, but times do change, and I don't think 'never' is a recognised word on Misplaced Pages. Other 'pillars' of the community are WP:AN and WP:VP, but many people never go near these forums. If the community ever fractures to such an extent that some areas become backwaters, cut off from mainstream opinion, then there could be problems. As always, it is a question of both scale and renewal. Sometimes you return to once-active areas and find them deathly quiet. Sometimes increases in scale overwhelm things for a while, until things are reorganised and settle down again. Sometimes inappropriate growth is found and some weeding is needed. I think the Misplaced Pages = a garden analogy can never be overdone! Carcharoth 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A pity. It appears that WP's sensitivity to the potential public outcry against Misplaced Pages for attempting to stop malicious editing of political articles emanating from the very bastions of democracy and free speech is going to give the go ahead for large organisations to massage their own pieces. It is a pity we don't have a policy regarding Conflict of Interest. Oh, wait... LessHeard vanU 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone reversed the Recent Changes page

I have no idea how this happened. I know Firefox has an option to let you reverse a page, but I wasn't using it, and it was only reversed after a certain edit, not the whole page. Kat, Queen of Typos 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's okay now. Shalom 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone probably used the Unicode symbol of doom in an edit summary. The one that looks like a clump of 8 apostrophes, and reverss the order of other characters (something to do with assisting typing in Cyrillic). I won't use it, as evil things happen. Neil ム 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just learned of that character's existence today. I don't even know how to make it. Evil indeed. Kat, Queen of Typos 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a minor annoyance at best. In a week or two everyone will forget about it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mjaballah

This user writes on his userpage that he wants to use a bot on Misplaced Pages. I don't understand what he's trying to say, but I want someone who knows how bots work to assess if this presents any kind of a threat. Shalom 16:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the bot will require editing privileges (or even a registered account for that matter), so there is no need for WP:RFBOT if I understand Mjaballah correctly. Perhaps the user is just alerting us out of server load concern? Seems like the user intends to use an automated process to extract all the math code/images from wikipedia to keep in a 3rd party database. -Andrew c  20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dino Renzo (moved from UAA)

This is a thread over at WP:UAA. However, it is a lot more than just a WP:U violation, so I'm moving it here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dino Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Violation of username policy because: Is an attack on an specific user; I don't know what's going on here, but this user page seems to be a problem, i suspect the user was solely created to attack the name.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: User:Rascals has additional and similar information, with reference to Dino Renzo. At first glance, I'd have trouble pegging what it is supposed to be, an article practice, a bragging page, or fiction. 13:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See the deletion log for Dino Renzo in article space. -Hit bull, win steak 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User probably needs to be blocked, but I don't see any UAA violation --lucid 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The situation seems to be wide-spread. There is also User:Simone Wentworth and user User:T-Rex Entourage. I was about to suggest the primary contributor of User:Dino Renzo move the article to article space when I realized it was not only unsourced, but also not his page. --Moonriddengirl 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote for deleting the pages and blocking the users, even this isn't a username issue.Rlevse 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive93#Rascals_Mob_Recordings_.26_Friends. I too foresee a deletion spree. -- zzuuzz 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

After I added the missing page to that, I realized it was an archive, lol. Do these pages need new incident reports opened, or can CSD tags be placed? 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And a brand new one: User:Dino Antonio Renzo. Evidence suggests that the anon IP that was working on User:Dino Renzo has registered the account. --Moonriddengirl14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There also is User:Dino Antonio Renzo, User:Simone Wentworth, User:T-Rex_Entourage. -- Jreferee 14:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the underlying IP, 86.149.36.32 (talk · contribs · block log) while this gets cleaned up. -- zzuuzz 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going though 86.149.36.32 (talk · contribs · logs) contributions as well. Please feel free to assist in this. -- Jreferee 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This all might be the work of User:Rascalpatrol. If someone has the time, please consider seeking a check user for these new accounts. -- Jreferee 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or probably not. Rascalpatrol was a confirmed sockpuppeteer of a number of different accounts used to edit Canadian political articles, not fictional gangster posts. -- Jreferee 15:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of pages to review:

Alberto Renzo, Damon Dales, David Chapman, Deanna Jones, Denzil Smith, Dino Renzo, Franklin Coles, Fredo Caan, Jacob Street, James Thornton, Lee Quoins, Leon Atkins, Mark Alexander, Roberto Renzo, Ryan Buzz, Simone Wentworth, The Rascal Mob, T-Rex Entourage, User:Alberto Renzo, User:Damon Dales, User:David Chapman, User:Deanna Jones, User:Denzil Smith, User:Dino Renzo, User:Franklin Coles, User:Fredo Caan, User:Jacob Street, User:James Thornton, User:Lee Quoins, User:Leon Atkins, User:Mark Alexander, User:Roberto Renzo, User:Ryan Buzz, User:Simone Wentworth, User:The Rascal Mob, User:T-Rex Entourage

-- Jreferee 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through all these and don't see anything required. Most have made no contributions at all, it appears, and the actual articles are genuine, I believe.--Slp1 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Of the three blue linked articles, Two are disambiguation pages, and one is a valid article. 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edits and userpages have been deleted, so unfortunately only admins can see them. Some of these pages are also potential pages. -- zzuuzz 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For follow up on this matter, please post at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dino Renzo. -- Jreferee 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please extend semi-protection

There is an anon-ip user who simply refuses to sign his/her disucssions ]

The page was semi-protected for a week and since then, he/she went to the anit-semitism page and created a bunch of havok related to the Alice Bailey page.

] ]

I would ask that the semi-protection be extended until this user agrees to sign their name! That's all I ask.

His/her latest set of not signing his/her name at the anti-semitism page created a whole mess of confusion as to who did what where. Sethie 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) There is a lot to be said for getting a user account, no argument ... but we generally don't semi-protect article pages to encourage users to sign their names on talk pages. It doesn't work, for one thing. :-) Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. --AnonEMouse 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It may not make someone do the most basic of wikipedia courtesies and I guess what I am saying he/she is is causing problems, not just on the Alice Bailey and anti-semitism page- but all over. Her talk page is full of warnings for blanking pages and vandalism. Sethie 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The mess was not created by the anon-ip user, at worst it is a slight inconvenience. The mess is the result of a group of editors who will not compromise over the disputed section of the article. The whole situation is crazy. There are hundreds and hundreds of messages being placed on the talk page in a dispute over a few sentences. To make it more complex, Sethie has deleted large amounts from the talk page (the parts he disagrees with), so it is difficult to refer back to what has been said. Isn't there some way to get some order in this mess? There is so much being put on the talk page that I do not even bother to try to read it all. Surely there has to be a way to restore order when things in an article have deteriated to this extent. Kwork 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Neutron keeps removing my (valid and polite) comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Content dispute, not vandalism. Users are allowed to remove any warning or message from thier userspace. — Moe ε 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr. Neutron has been deleting my comments from his talk page, even to the level of archiving the whole content, just to prevent anyone to see what my valid points about his behavior and vandalism on the Ilinden Uprising page are. He has also called in friends, to harass me and the said article.

Capricornis 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So? He can do almost whatever he wants to his talk page. Use diffs if there's a problem. He can't erase history without the intervention of an admin. OrangeMarlin 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you've warned him about vandalism or other behavior and he erases the warning, then it can be treated as read and acknowledged. If you feel there's an ongoing problem with vandalism, then you can raise it at WP:AIV. However, it appears from a cursory glance to be a content dispute and not vandalism - in which case you may want to follow the steps outlined in dispute resolution. MastCell 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious abuse of admin privileges

Hi. user:the JPS has been abusing his admin privileges by deleting outright an established article (Christopher Nudds). He has done this on the grounds that a vandal, obsessed with this individual has returned, when in actual fact this article has stood for several months now and been edited by several established users. He has banned my account (user:Toasted Sandwich Machine) simply for creating an appropriate redirect regarding this case, even though I'd had nothing to do with the article up till then. Given that I'd also helped tag some sockpuppets belonging to a "Badger Vandal", user:the JPS has also proceeded to connect me with this individual also. Please can someone help as this is really very unfair and in my opinion it is the direct result of one administrator abusing their rights in defiance of the will of the community here. 81.132.213.148 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging sockpuppet pages is hardly a good way to start with an account. That is always going to be very suspicious. GDonato (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't 81.132.213.148 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that your IP comes from the same place the Badger Vandal comes from it is quite obvious you are the same vandal. Find a new hobby. IrishGuy 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And oh yeah. That "established" article has been deleted SEVEN times. --Woohookitty 08:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's now salted. Neil ム 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention

Hi folks. There's a user conduct RfC right now for User:Commodore Sloat that I think is in need of some fresh admin attention.

Whether to re-invigorate discussion, close the RfC or anything in between, the conduct and content there appears to me to be somewhat atypical and without characterizing the behavior of any editor (including myself) as productive or non-productive, I think some fresh perspective is required on the matter. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An updated request for assistance: In what appears to be a direct violation of policy, 3 certifying editors have placed 'Outside Views' on the RfC in addition to their certifications. The policy on the page itself reads:

Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

If this is a commonplace practice, despite what I read as clear policy, please advise here on the talk page. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note: Following a good-faith apology by the RfC's target (User:Commodore Sloat), he and the RfC's originator (User:Bigglove) have now both requested closure. Thanks. -- 03:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot running again

Heads up: BetacommandBot is tagging nonfree images again. This bot looks for images that violate WP:NFCC and tags them for fixing or deletion. WP:NFCC#10 requires the image description page to contain "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline." In this phase the bot looks to ensure that the name of each article containing the image is included in the image description page's text. In the case where there is a fair use rationale but no article name, the bot will correctly tag the image as a violation. This is trivial to resolve (if the rationale is correct) by adding the article name. In the case that the image is used in multiple articles, the policy requires some independent justification for each use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that nobody is dumb enough to delete an image because it is used in multiple articles, but only meets NFCC for some but not all of them. The correct remedy in that case is to remove the image from the non-compliant article(s) while leaving it in the compliant article(s). GRBerry 02:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

dont worry. its only tagging images that dont include any page names for where its used. β 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, dealing with these deletion tags will require attention on the part of the admins who do it. In many cases the right resolution is a combination of removing the image from some articles and adding article names for the fair use rationale given. Unfortunately, the rationale is often so generic that it cannot really be said to apply to any article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone sees this not as cases where images should be deleted, but their rationales corrected. To delete an image because the article is not mentioned is absurd, considering the article will be listed at the bottom of the image page, and a single edit rectifies the situation. - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the bot just commented out uses of the image where no rationale presently existed and made a note on the article's talk page? Neil ム 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations

Could we get as many people to watch this page as possible? It's supposed to be a faster version of WP:CP, but we're getting backlogged. 2 days at the moment. It's a pretty easy page to monitor. Either the page is a copyvio or it is not. Thanks. --Woohookitty 08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• How is this a faster version of WP:CP, or indeed any different from CP? It appears to be exactly the same page, albeit a version that fewer people know about and therefore has fewer throughput. >Radiant< 09:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Running a bot

Do I have to be an administrator in order to run a bot? NHRHS2010 11:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Or, at least, I don't think so. Moreschi 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not. You do, however, need permission - see WP:RFBOT. You should also consider running the bot on a seperate account to your main one. Neil ム 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then how do I get permission and create a bot? NHRHS2010 11:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BOT, WP:BRFA, and WP:BAG. Should have everything you need. Moreschi 11:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards